That Council approve an amendment
to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law 100-2000 to rezone 30 Tyrrell Place
from Residential Sixth “B” Density Zone - (R6B) to Residential Sixth Density
“B” Zone: Block 1 - (R6B: Block 1) to permit the development of ground
-oriented and stacked townhouses as detailed in Document 1.

Development Services Department
/ Services d’aménagement

580-2424
ext. 28310, karen.currie@ottawa.ca

Ref N°:ACS2002-DEV-APR-0211

SUBJECT:ZONING
– 30 TYRRELL PLACE

OBJET:ZONAGE
– 30 PLACE TYRRELL

REPORT RECOMMENDATION

That the Planning and Development Committee recommend
Council approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean Zoning By-law
100-2000 to rezone 30 Tyrrell Place from Residential Sixth “B” Density Zone -
(R6B) to Residential Sixth Density “B” Zone: Block 1 - (R6B: Block 1) to permit
the development of ground -oriented and stacked townhouses as detailed in
Document 1.

BACKGROUND

An application has been made to
amend the Zoning By-law to permit the construction of 195 townhouse units in
total, on a vacant parcel of land located in the Westcliffe community of Bells
Corners. The parcel is situated on the southeast corner of the intersection of
Seyton Drive and Tyrrell Place (see Document 2).

In addition to the zoning
amendment application, site plan, road opening and street naming applications
have been submitted. The site plan application is currently being processed and
will address the design elements of the development relating to building
elevations, landscaping, buffering, traffic and servicing issues.

DISCUSSION

Former Regional Official Plan

The subject site lies within the
General Urban Area in the former Regional Official Plan. Section 2 of this plan
contains a Regional Development Strategy, the emphasis of which is on more
compact, efficient development within the confines of the Greenbelt. This
application satisfies the objectives contained in the development strategy
especially relating to the achievement of more compact development and
providing a variety and mix of housing types, which can be serviced in a cost
effective manner. These principles are also reiterated in the Preliminary Draft
of the City of Ottawa Official Plan.

Former Nepean Official Plan:

The site is designated
“Residential” in the former City of Nepean Official Plan and “High Density
Residential” on Schedule “A” of the Secondary Plan for the Bells Corners
Community. The general intent of the Residential designation is in keeping with
the Regional Official Plan. The Secondary Plan objective for these lands is to
permit apartment buildings, but may include, where appropriate, medium density
development. This policy objective is reflected in the current zoning for the
site, which is R6B, permitting only apartment dwellings. The policies also
indicate that medium and high-density developments shall be permitted where
they can be adequately accommodated, will not significantly alter the neighbourhood
character, where there are adequate services and there is demonstrated local
demand.

Zoning Compatibility

The current zoning on the site is
Residential Sixth Density “B” Zone – R6B, which permits only apartments
dwellings on the site developed to a maximum density of 112 units per hectare.
The density requirement was designed to control negative impacts of apartments
on abutting developments and therefore a maximum density is specified in the
by-law as opposed to a minimum. This zoning could theoretically yield a maximum
of 311 units in an apartment form, with a building height of 33.6 metres or
eight to ten storeys high. The present zoning on this site has been in place
for over 15 years. The intention was to develop the site for apartments when market
conditions prevailed.

The proposed zoning amendment
will, through an exception to the existing R6B zone, add ground oriented and
stacked townhouse units to the permitted uses for this site, developed to a
minimum density of 70 units per hectare. The minimum density provision will
ensure that the site plan, when finalized, will yield a density that is in
keeping with the Official Plan objectives.In total 195 units are being proposed, of which 80 are stacked units and
115 are ground oriented townhouses (see Document 3).

The existing R6B zone requirements were designed for an
apartment dwelling. As a result, the zoning amendment that is being proposed is
tailored to accommodate the proposed townhouses and stacked units. The
following table provides a comparison of the proposed zoning provisions with a
comparable townhouse zone (R5C) and the existing apartment zone (R6B).

Zone Provision

Proposed R6B – Block 1

Comparable
R5C – Townhouse Zone

Existing R6B – Apartment Dwelling Zone

Density

70 units/ha.

50 units/ha.

112 units/ha.

Lot Coverage

45%

40%

25%

Building Height (Maximum)

11.5 m.

10.7 m.

33.6 m.

Yard Front (Minimum)

4.8 m.

6.0 m.

9.1 m. (or 1.4
times the Building Height)**

Yard Rear (Minimum)

5.9 m.

6.0 m.

9.1 m. (or 1.4
times the Building Height)**

Interior Yard Side (Minimum)

3.2 m.

6.0 m. *

9.1 m. (or 1.4
times the Building Height)**

Exterior Yard Side (Minimum)

3.5 m.

6.0 m. *

9.1 m. (or 1.4
times the Building Height)**

Building Main Spacing (Minimum)

2.4 m.

3.0 m.

4.5 m.

*Zoning By-law 100-2000 does
not differentiate between “Interior” and “Exterior” Yards

**Where an apartment abuts
residential units that are ground oriented, the abutting yard shall be a
minimum of 9.1 metres or 1.4 times the building height, whichever is the greater.

In addition, notwithstanding future severances of this site, the entire
parcel will be considered one lot for the purpose of the Zoning By-law.

A well-attended community meeting organized by
the applicant in September, drew a number of concerns from area residents. A
presentation of these is contained in the Consultation section at the end of
this report. Three significant issues that were raised include lot coverage,
building height and rear yard setbacks. These can be addressed through the zoning
by-law amendment, while the other issues such as buffering, traffic, servicing,
and snow storage can be adequately addressed through site plan approval.

With regards to lot coverage,the
concern was that the request of 45% was excessive. However, the proposed
coverage is not unreasonable when viewed in comparison to a typical townhouse
zone (R5C in the table above). The proposed lot coverage of 45% is only 5% more
than is typically required for townhouses. An apartment could yield lot
coverage of 25%, but would be mid to high-rise. The proposed townhouse
development proposes lot coverage of 45%, but with ground-oriented units. The
proposals increased lot coverage represents a trade-off for the mid to
high-rise apartment.

The proposed building height of 11.5 metres is
a 0.8 metre variance from the R5C zone. This report is recommending that the
maximum building height be fixed at 11.5 metres, which is in keeping with
comparable developments in the area. The increased height is required to
accommodate the stacked townhouse units incorporated into the proposal. The
standard townhouse unit will be approximately 9.15 metres high versus the
stacked units, which will be approximately 2.35 metres higher at 11.5 metres
high.

With regards to the rear yard setbacks, it
should be noted that the application request is not dissimilar from the typical
townhouse zone rear yard provision. In the table above, the R5C zone is a
typical townhouse zone with rear yards of 6.0 metres. In this application, the
request is for a rear yard of 5.9 metres versus 6.0 metres, a mere 0.1-metre
variance. Concerns with the yard reductions focus around loss of privacy for
existing residents; however, screening and fencing will be examined through
site plan control approval to address the issue.

Neighbourhood Compatibility

In terms of compatibility with
the surrounding community, the Westcliffe community is characterized by
significantly higher residential densities than any other part of Bells
Corners. There is a multi-storey housing complex operated by Nepean Housing as
well as a multi-storey seniors residence and co-operative housing project that
immediately abuts the site to the south. The remaining stock of housing in the
area is street townhouses along Seyton Drive and single family detached
dwellings developed under the “linked single” format immediately abutting the
site to the north and across on Tyrrell Place. The site also backs onto single
homes that front onto Moodie Drive. The proposal represents an extension of the
development pattern that presently exists along Seyton Drive and is an
appropriate transition from the singles that are located on the Tyrrell Place.

An accompanying site plan
application has been submitted to the Department. However, at the time this
report was being prepared, the plan was being revised to respond to community
concerns. Preliminary indications are that some units will be developed
fronting onto Seyton Drive and Tyrrell Place with the rest of the units
developed on a private internal roadway.

Staff supports the amendment to a Residential Sixth
Density “B” Zone, for the following reasons:

The
application for 195 units represents a density of 70 units per hectare,
which is 61% of the maximum density that could be achieved through an
apartment dwelling on this site;

The proposal complies with the Smart Growth
principles embodied in the draft Official Plan vis-à-vis developments that
make efficient use of existing services and do not require extensive
expansion of the transportation network

The proposal represents a reasonable balance between
the City’s objectives for a mix of housing types and the desires of the
abutting residents who would not support an apartment on this site, and

The development is not out of character with the
immediately surrounding Westcliffe community.

CONSULTATION

Notice of this application was carried out in
accordance with the City’s Public Notification and Consultation Policy.
Information signs were also posted on-site indicating the nature of the
application.

A number of responses were received from the
public circulation. A community meeting initiated by the applicant was also
held in the Westcliffe Community Building on September 9, 2002, to present the
proposal and hear issues and concerns. A summary of the main issues were:

·proposed
setbacks from existing residential

·height
of the stacked units in comparison to existing residences

·Proposed
lot coverage for the overall development

·Impacts
of additional traffic on Seyton Drive and Tyrrell Place

·Flooding
on adjacent properties as a result of the proposal

·Fencing
around the perimeter of the development

·Snow
storage and removal

·The
encroachment of decks and patios into the rear yards and their impact on
privacy of abutting residents and

·Installation
of sidewalks along Seyton Drive

Staff Response :

Staff feels confident that most of these issues
can be adequately dealt with through the site plan approval process with the
exception of rear yard setbacks, lot coverage, and building height. These
issues were dealt with in detail earlier in the report and the by-law will be
tailored to address the issues. The site plan is being revised to address the
remaining concerns and will be presented to the residents in upcoming community
meetings as part of the site plan consultation process.

The Ward Councillor is aware of the
application.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

N/A

APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS

The application was processed within the
timeframe established for the processing of Zoning Amendment applications.

ATTACHMENTS

Document
1 – Details of Recommended Zoning

Document 2 –
Location Plan

Document 3 –
Concept Site Plan

DISPOSITION

Development
Services Department to forward the implementing by-law to City Council and
undertake required Planning Act notification.

3)The lands
zoned R6B – Block 1 shall be considered as one lot for
Zoning By-law purposes regardless of severances or the definition of LOT in the
Zoning By-law.

Location PlanDocument
2

Concept Site PlanDocument
3

ZONING – 30
TYRRELL PLACE

ZONAGE – 30 PLACE TYRRELL

ACS2002-DEV-APR-0211

Chair Hunter
began by reading a statement required under the Planning Act, which advised that anyone who intended to appeal this
proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), must
either voice their objections at the public meeting, or submit their comments
in writing prior to the amendment being adopted by City Council.Failure to do so could result in refusal/dismissal
of the appeal by the OMB.

Dhaneshware
Neermul provided a brief presentation and was available to answer any questions
related to the recommendations contained in departmental report dated 2 October
2002

Michele
Laflamme was present as Chair, Westcliffe Estates Development Proposal
Committee.A Sub Committee was
formed out of the Westcliffe Estate Committee Association to deal with the
community concerns regarding the proposal.Although Westcliffe Estate might be characterized by higher density than
other areas of Bells Corners, the proposed development was definitely out of
character with properties abutting the site.Height was a concern.She
provided samples of an Ashcroft development in Central Park at Merivale.Some of the units planned were three storeys
in height, with steep roofs and provided sample photos of existing properties
in the neighbourhood.They were two
storeys and the existing row houses were also much lower.Most of the houses facing Moodie Drive were
bungalows.There was a marked contrast
with the proposal.Homes further
removed from the site were a little higher.As a result, the abutting homeowners were concerned about privacy
issues.There was discussion on
installing fences and trees, but the opinion was that it would take a very high
fence to ensure privacy with such a difference in height and trees would not
ensure immediate privacy.Another
concern was the number of proposed units to abut existing homes.On the issue of an apartment building, there
was a split in the community.50% would
be more interested in having an apartment building either really close to the
street or in the middle of the site.The residents cherish their privacy and it was one of the main reasons
they purchased their property.They
were concerned about the decrease in property value.In general, the expectations of the current residents were
different from prospective purchasers willingly buying higher density.It was unfair to treat people the same
way.Having been involved in drafting
the by-law, the 1.4 times exception clause was probably written for this
purpose.Unfortunately the proposed
by-law completely ignores that clause.Another concern was the decks and balconies, which would bring the units
even closer to the property line of existing properties.

Looking at the
site plan, there was a grade from the south side of the lot to the north
side.They were not yet aware of height
for the units and although the community requested that all units be level
there was no guarantee whether they would be either lower or higher.

She addressed
security issues and looking at the preliminary draft of the City of Ottawa
draft OP, there was a statement that said that a new neighbourhood would be
planned with the needs of pedestrians and cyclists as a chief priority.Sidewalks and pathways would be provided
along the streets.As can be seen from
the plan, sidewalks were practically non-existent from that plan.There was already an established pedestrian
traffic pattern across the vacant field through the right of way.There were two schools, a church, bus, etc.
and the community questioned wondering how that would be addressed since it
appeared that there was no more for pathways or sidewalks.

As well there
was concern regarding security with the difficulty to be experienced by
residents backing out of their driveways from narrow lots.The community had expressed for some time
concern regarding traffic issues with the City and three-way stop sign was
recently installed to deal with that issue.A traffic issue was recognized and increasing the number of units would
definitely not help the situation.

The proposed
recommendation set a minimum density of 70 units per hectare, when normally it
set maximum densities.When looking at
the 195 units planned, the density did not equal 70 units per hectare, but was
lower.She questioned whether there was
a new site plan that increased the number of units and did not receive an
answer for that.With the increased
density, there was the number of available parking spots and she did not know
if that was properly addressed.Snow
management; where was snow going to be stored until it was removed from the
site?Where would garbage be put?What are the lighting concerns?These would need to be addressed with the
site plan.There were a number of
negative impacts with the increased the units.

The City and
developer indicated there were benefits in intensification within the
Greenbelt.Although the community
recognized the benefits of intensification, it was applied in contradictory
ways.The units were reduced from 112
units to 70 per hectare but setbacks were decreased. There was no fixed
interpretation on what intensification should be.The residents reluctantly accepted that the site would be
developed, but it should be in line with the existing community.Given the configuration, little room was
left for trees etc.The Community
opposed the current staff recommendation, but were unaware if they could
propose amendments to the current proposal.The community realized there would be development and someone would
always be unhappy, but if some compromises could be made for the lot coverage;
for example, currently it was 25% and was proposed at 45% they were willing to
compromise at 35%, which would alleviate some concerns.In the same vein, the density went from 112,
which was recognized as a high rise building and unrealistic, to 70, she
suggested 60.The community was willing
to agree to all the yard setbacks, with the exception that the 1.4 clause be
applied to all the units on the perimeter of the site, regardless of whether
they were townhomes, stacked or unstacked.

In
response to a query from Councillor Munter, Ms. Laflamme suggested the
community would like to see single homes, which they understood would never
happen.The Councillor received
confirmation, given a choice; residents would like a 330-unit, ten-storey
apartment building.Ms. Laflamme declared
it was not her personal preference, but again the community was a split.Councillor Munter was completely astonished
by that statement.Ms. Laflamme
understood the perplexity of the Committee, but it was determined the apartment
building would not be close to the property line.

Councillor
Munter noted the 25% coverage was based on an apartment building and when
dealing with lot coverage and height, more land means lower.Moving the buildings further away and
reducing their footprint would squeeze as the logical trade-off.Would the community accept stacked units,
with two storey units, if it meant the units were further away?Ms. Laflamme reiterated her previous
comments about returning to the original proposal, but given the choice between
four storeys with large setbacks on the perimeter or the current application,
the community would take the four storeys.

Councillor
Stavinga inquired what happened to the original proposal of 160 units.Ms Currie advised that when the developer
approached the City staff looked at the site in terms of intensification
policies allowing for infill within a community.The site had been zoned for apartment development, for many years
and staff opined it was important to maintain that objective to maximize the
number of doable units on the site.Ashcroft originally proposed a townhouse proposal on the site, which
staff did not support.Staff was trying
to maximize the number of units on the site to maintain the current
density.That was the rationale for
implementing a minimum density on the property, since it feared a zone that
allowed for townhouses without minimum density would result in a standard
townhouse type product.

Councillor
Stavinga asked why staff accepted a proposal that appeared to encourage
conflict within the community.Ms.
Currie responded that staff would have preferred to retain the apartment zoning
and achieve growth targets in a more efficient manner.The developer proposed an alternative that
seemed to be compatible with development in the adjacent community with
townhouses, stacked type units albeit reducing the number of units.On that basis staff was willing to support
the recommendation.She accepted it was
always difficult when a series of yards abutted one.Through the site plan, fencing, and perhaps landscaping, etc.
would help mitigate that problem.Many
of the units were not necessarily stacked, but standard townhouses lower than
shown on the plan.Addressing a further
question, Ms. Currie responded that staff would not be adverse to more intense
development and the ultimate density of the 8-10 storeys.

Chair
Hunter noted that similar to the Ogilvie Road issue, the phrase density
referred to a minimum number of units and inquired if this was new thinking in
zoning by-laws for the City.Ms. Currie
acknowledged some by-laws have minimums and maximums.She referenced the Cumberland Zoning By-Law, which contained
minimums.Once a municipality had
undertaken an exercise and identified a range of unit types in communities to
achieve the ultimate balance and growth targets the municipality had to protect
those apartment sites.That was
achieved by imposing minimums in density; otherwise a developer could make an
application for half the proposal.Many
OPs and Zoning By-Laws do have minimums and maximums densities for the higher
density type of development.There was
a maximum in place that would be the maximum imposed in the current R6B
zone.This was an exception, so it was
a not withstanding clause, with a minimum 70, maximum 112, which was the
existing maximum.

Steve
Tovell, President, Westcliffe Estates Community Association, represented the community at large.Aspects of the application were addressed in
an application for Minor Variance to the Committee of Adjustment presented on
two separate occasions.Both were
postponed for a variety of reasons, specifically related to setbacks among
other things.Unlike some projects
where the City, the developer and the public met early in the project
development phase, this did not take place with this particular project and
that resulted in problems and delays for the developer.The feeling within the community was that it
was left out of the process.He took it
upon himself to negotiate something more amenable with the developer.There was some openness to address some of
the community’s concerns.Contrary to
statements in the report a well-attended community meeting was the result of
intense community interest and persistent effort on behalf of the community and
not by the applicant.

The
statement “Westcliffe Communities was characterized by significantly higher
residential areas than any other part of Bells Corners” was false and
self-serving.There were other
high-rises, but generally speaking, the footprint in Bells Corners was
attractive single-family homes and Westcliffe was newer.He demonstrated on the map the single-family
homes and town homes, but if one looked at the site plan, it was obvious there
was a difference in the character.He
pointed that out since the report was misleading.The vague reference to a variety of past, present and proposed
plans as well as strategies to support zoning amendments and the extensive
by-law variances associated with that were out of context and misleading.

The
original R6B zoning was for an apartment building had a specific exception that
addressed the development that abuts existing homes.That was completely avoided and missed in terms of minor
variances and seemed to be thrown out.There was a move from R6B, high-rise apartment building to a town home
called comparable.Every aspect of the
R5C was being asked to be changed.Questions and concerns regarding adequate services were yet to be
resolved.They were led to believe they
would have other opportunities to address those concerns at the site plan stage
and other phases.

In
summary, the community as a whole was surprised they were not invited to
express an opinion with regard to an apartment versus the particular
development.Surprising for many, based
on the community involvement comments to date, there appeared to be a balance
in terms of residents who would rather have the apartment than that particular
development.It was believed there was
a reason why it was established.The
front and, in particular, back setbacks represent a potential safety hazard
along Tyrell and Seyton Drive.The
community long expressed concerns to the former City of Nepean that traffic was
a major problem due to only three entrances/exits to the whole community.Moving those units closer to the street
reduces the visibility, puts cars in the parking lots closer to the street and
potentially reduces the ability to see that.Reducing the setbacks in the front was a safety issue.Furthermore, since that area was vacant it
was popular and frequented by families to get to churches, schools, library and
public transit, making it a pedestrian safety.

The
existing zoning allowed for approximately 311 units and the proposal called for
165.Planning staff allowed the
developer to reduce it from 311 to 195, but insisted on cramming 195 units on
the site, changing every aspect of that particular code.

On
the one hand they reduced the concentration of development yet used
intensification to cram 195 units.Where did those 195 units come from?The community opined that safety, the nature of the community and the
existing protections for residents supersede intensification.If you everything was left in place with the
new proposed zoning, what would be the impact on the number of units that the
developer could build?The developer
stated the parcel was the last sizeable piece of land in Bells Corners of any
significance and, intensification aside, the difference between 165 or more, to
allow the setbacks and some compromise to the setbacks, would not be a major
problem.If the result was few town
homes then it was a small price to pay if the community was safer and the
character was maintained.

Janet
Bradley, solicitor for Ashcroft Homes,
advised that David Chou, Ashcroft Homes was present.This parcel of land was vacant since Assaly
developed the lands in 1970 and was always zoned for high-rise
development.For various reasons it was
never developed.The proposal before
Committee was achieved through compromise.Staff originally wanted more density and the applicant understood from
speaking with Councillor Harder and others that the community wanted less
density resulting in the compromise that was understood to be acceptable
density at 195 units, by placing a combination of stacked townhouses and row
houses.Stacked houses were necessary
for more density.It was a good plan.The community meeting was very well attended
in an area community centre.She was
dumbfounded to hear that 50% wanted apartments, which was never raised.Her recollection from the meeting was a
concern about the height of some of the stacked townhouses and privacy
issues.After the public community
meeting, the developer changed the plans and placed the stacked townhouses in
the middle of the development with the row houses at the edge ensuring
comparable rear yard to rear yard.That
was thought to address the major issue of residents at the meeting.It was unfortunate Councillor Harder could
not be in attendance today, because of a family event, since she had real
finger on the pulse of her community and assured her earlier this week she
supported the staff report.She hoped
Councillor Harder was able to communicate that to the Committee.

The
submissions presented made reflected a desire for the apartment performance
standards applied to townhouse development.As Mr. Neermul explained this was a typical Bells Corners townhouse type
of development.It would not be
appropriate to impose apartment building performance standards to a typical
townhouse development.The densities
would not be in keeping with the proposed OP and the staff’s perception of what
it takes to achieve the goals with the directions given them.She asked the Committee to support the staff
report, which was the result of a lot of compromise and re-planning, supported
of the Ward.

Councillor
Munter observed Ashcroft was one of the very few developers in Ottawa that
build apartment buildings and he questioned why, having acquired a site zoned
for apartments with a 10-storey designation a site plan was not filed and thus
the rezoning.Mr. Chou responded that a
10-storey condo apartment was not marketable today on this particular site,
which was why it stood empty for 15 years.The demand for condos was largely in the downtown core.He could not justify buying the site as a
condo apartment site.On the other hand
there was a large interest in the community for a street-oriented project.Responding to the marketability of condos,
Councillor Munter pointed out Ashcroft was pursuing that king of development in
a similar neighbourhood in Kanata.Mr.
Chou clarified that the site in Kanata was adjacent to the Kanata employment
district; and, the Newbridge offices across the street.The site backed onto the golf course and
there was challenging topography in the slope of the land, which makes it
difficult to develop street oriented units.It was an excellent site for a pair of condos that allow the employees
in the high tech industry that type of lifestyle.High-rise condos and apartments were very site specific and he
clarified his comment to say that condos wer viable in specific areas.

Councillor
Munter leaned towards Ms. Bradley’s comments, partially from his experience
that it was extremely difficult to believe that residents alarmed by a
three-storey development would welcome an 8-10-storey development.

Chair
Hunter responded that it was largely an issue of setback and they might not
have considered the parking structure needed to support the apartment building,
but it was really an issue of the physical setback from apartment
buildings.Almost all of the
neighbourhoods in Nepean were planned with a mix of densities from singles,
semis and a number of town houses with apartments in them.Almost all the apartment buildings when
proposed met with some opposition, but when the alternatives were considered
with the amount of the setback there was considerable support, since apartment
buildings could be oriented on the site with more green space and 25% lot
coverage compared to 45%.

Councillor
Stavinga referenced the various concerns raised by the residents.To what extent was Ashcroft amenable to
increase the number of stacked units and bring the site further to allow
additional setbacks.Ms. Bradley
reiterated the realignment to have the stacked internal and the row houses at
the edge for the reasons given.She
added that there were some site servicing capacity issues on the site that
would be exacerbated if the density increased too much over that now proposed,
which was another reason for the particular number and compromise.

There
were some constraints that could be exacerbated by increased costs.

Mr.
Chou added that the 165-unit proposal would have had units backing onto the
single house in the same manner as the application.The orientation of the streets and the form of the development
was identical.The difference was that
on one of those blocks, there would be a double up of the number of units. So,
the form of development had not changed from day one.Essentially this converted a high-rise site into street oriented
town home development.The single homes
facing Moodie Drive that back on the development have over ten metre back yard
setbacks and would not be unduly affected by either development.There were some concerns raised by the
abutting landowners with respect to buffering and fence, etc. and Ashcroft was
not opposed to dialogue on privacy issues between this development and the
single-family homes that back onto it during the site plan process, which was
the right vehicle to address those concerns.

Chair
Hunter advised the Committee that Councillor Harder was aware of some of the
neighbourhood concerns and supported the application.

Responding
to a question by Councillor Arnold, Mr. Neermul clarified the rezoning
addressed setbacks, the height of units, and lot coverage.Site plan issues would address the traffic
study, which were in process and being produced; servicing issues related to
the infrastructure, fencing, buffering and screening with reference to the use,
snow storage issues, encroachment of decks, patios in the rear yards, and the
installation of a sidewalk on Seyton Drive, which was suggested.Those were some of the issues that would be
addressed in the site plan.

Chair
Hunter reiterated a concern, which was the site plan issue, if the application
was approved.He did not want to see an
access onto Moodie Drive, since that was multiple accidents waiting to happen
and was surprised that the Transportation Department hadn’t commented on
that.Mr. Neermul recounted it was
discussed at the public meeting and staff was not opposed to closing it off.It was shown on the site plan, but if the
transportation study recommended no access, staff was amenable.Chair Hunter opined there should be
pedestrian access, but right in right out.He would be voting against the application based on a principle of intensification
that he did not support.Based on his
long history on Nepean Council, developments considered neighbourhood
compatibility and maintaining zone types and housing of similar type and
density.The concerns raised by the two
delegations might be a Nepean tradition, but what they came to expect from
development, re-development and re-zonings in Nepean and he wanted to be
consistent.160 units were enough in
that area.He did not perceive any
gain, either for the current residents or future residents to be crammed in
this manner.It was not compatible with
the vicinity.

Councillor
Munter opined the difference between 165 and 195 units did not change the
capability and the designation was 116 units fewer than originally anticipated
and had the support of the local Councillor.On that basis he would support the staff recommendation.

Moved
by Councillor A, Munter:

That the Planning and Development
Committee recommend Council approve an amendment to the former City of Nepean
Zoning By-law 100-2000 to rezone 30 Tyrrell Place from Residential Sixth “B”
Density Zone - (R6B) to Residential Sixth Density “B” Zone: Block 1 - (R6B:
Block 1) to permit the development of ground -oriented and stacked townhouses
as detailed in Document 1.